'Should we withdraw from Europe?' poll discussion

orcadian

The poll shows a fairly even split - 40% want to stay in but have less integration; 30% want to withdraw; and 30% want the status quo or more integration - but a clear majority still believe we should be in the EU. Until the EU gets better at explaining the cost savings for business of common trading standards covering a market of half a billion people, it's understandable we the public remain baffled by it.

europa

YANA wrote: »

as the second wealthiest nation in the EU and the fourth in the world, we can do it.

Please provide supporting evidence for these figures.

worbikeman

It's a big lie about the EU making business easier - I tried to post a 7kg package to Rep Ireland, Parcelforce wanted £61!! But to a nearby address in N. Ireland, 20 miles away, the same package was £15! The reason? Because S. Ireland is 'abroad'. So much for breaking down boundaries.

ScarletBea

AlanR55 wrote: »

We can still trade with the EU but still retain our laws and borders
Switzerland and others do well on it.

Ok, you'd trade with the EU, but always be second choice from an EU member state.
And everything would be far more expensive (have you seen the prices in Switzerland?).

And most of the UK laws do not come from the EU. That's the idea spread by those in power to justify their moronic inventions (like bin sizes, fortnightly garbage collection, post rates and such like...)

chris_yo

I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

• "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
• "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
• "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
• "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
• "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
• "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
• "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
• Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
• "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
• Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.

europa

chris_yo wrote: »

I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

• "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
• "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
• "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
• "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
• "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
• "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
• "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
• Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
• "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
• Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.

FINALLY, someone who demonstrates an educated understanding of the situation in which the UK finds itself. And, low and behold, it is not a eurospectic. Oh, what a surprise!

Ken68

Good one Chris Yo, welcome to the forums.
Additionally the history of Europe is the history of WAR.
Bonding together in trade and social agreements can only do good.

Sammm_2

I haven't posted before, but felt I needed to do this time.

I'm really surprised at the number of people who feel that the UK's membership to the EU is wholey negative.

I'm 30 but went to uni at the age of 27 & prior to that was pretty much against the EU, & thought we should be more independent but uni & what its taught me has been a real eye opener.

I still don't know enough to rattle on all night about the pros of EU membership but I just did want to say that I feel in today's globolised world the EU is a real positive force against the powers of the US, Russia, China etc. The EU combined has a GDP greater than the US & a combined military force to rival China, I know I would rather live in a country which was part of the EU.


More basically, regarding money, please don't forget that the recession started in the US & has affected the UK much harder as result combared with our EU counterparts due to the Anglo-saxon capitalist economy we lead. We're encouraged to spend spend spend, to get significantly in debt to power our economy, only to suffer when big business decided to cut back, forcing us to work longer hours to manage. A more cooperative system like the EU, I feel would benefit us long term.

There is more that could be said & I feel it won't be popular but I can say that not all British people are against the EU!

SomethingWitty_2

chris_yo wrote: »

I'd like to see an honest and open debate about the European Union. However, it seems the "out of EU" crowd are more prone to using arguments that are based on nationalist sentiments of fear and misunderstanding rather than rationality and logic. Just from reading this topic there are some common themes jumping up:

• "The E.U. makes our laws." WRONG. There are two types of E.U. legislative acts - "regulations" and "directives". Both are produced by participating countries. Regulations are legally binding in member states. Directives are not - they specify broad aims, but must be implemented in national law. Almost all of the "EU laws" that people talk about are actually directives - ie. suggestions and overall aims, but not actually law!
• "The Human Rights Act was invented and forced on us by the E.U." WRONG. The Human Rights Act IS British! It is an act of Parliament that went through the same passage of debate by British M.P.s in the House of Commons as any other law. The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Act is based on, was written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British Conservative Party politician! And his whole point was to encourage traditional British civil liberties and freedom in the European Union, not the other way around!
• "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.
• "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.
• "Other countries can just ignore E.U. rules that they don't like." NOT TRUE. For example, the European court has repeatedly ruled against national governments for giving state aid to private companies. France, Germany and Italy have all lost high profiles cases where they've given state aid to their own companies, thus preventing fair competition.
• "If we were outside the E.U. British people could still travel freely throughout Europe." POSSIBLY NOT TRUE. I have colleagues born outside the E.U. who have visas to work and reside in the U.K. Even with this they have no right to travel anywhere else in the E.U.. Getting visas to travel to France, Germany etc. is a real pain for them - they have to provide photocopies of advance bookings for every hotel they plan to stay on every night. There is no way for them to be spontaneous and just arrive in a city looking for accommodation. Even visiting friends is hard - they need signed letters stating that their friend will provide accommodation. Doing something like a backpacking hostel holiday is impossible for them. It's crazy.
• "The E.U. is forcing us to scrap the British lightbulb - which works perfectly well - and embrace a bulb that contains toxic mercury". PARTIALLY NOT TRUE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED. Firstly, what we know today as the "light bulb" was invented at Thomas Edison's (an American) research labs in Menlo Park, California. There were previous designs, but today's design is a direct copy of Edison's. Secondly, yes CFL bulbs do contain a small amount of mercury, but it is not a toxic amount - if you break a bulb you can just brush or vacuum the bits up and you'll be fine. Thermometers also contain mercury - am I scared of thermometers? No. Thirdly, 20% or so of the electric generated in Britain is used in lighting - switching to lower power bulbs will benefit us, reducing costs. Fourthly, CFL bulbs consume only 20% the energy of traditional bulbs, meaning that we generate less electricity, and need fewer power stations. Power stations are generally big dirty buildings that pump out pollution 24 hours a day. Replacing old bulbs with CFL bulbs will produce a huge net benefit to the UK. Yes, it's a European regulation, but in this case, its one which directly benefits our country. And the E.U. isn't alone here - Australia, Canada and the U.S. have all announced plans to phase out old style bulbs. It just makes economic sense.
• Most of the "anti EU" crowd are the most vocal proponents of a United Kingdom including Scotland. I would like to see a rational argument as to why the U.K. should leave a larger political union, whilst at the same time English politicians scoff at the idea of Scotland leaving the U.K. Don't all the same arguments about large government and unaccountability apply here? And the same arguments about another country making your laws? And deciding your economic policy? And even corruption - note that it's only the Westminster parliament where MPs have been claiming dodgy expenses?
• "The EU is forcing ID cards on us". FALSE. The ID card scheme is British and is being promoted by the Labour party, which is also British. And the whole "foreigners should have to carry ID cards" thing is rubbish - how on earth can you tell the difference between a foreigner and a resident of the U.K.? If the police stop someone who doesn't have a card, that person can simply say "well, that's cos I'm a British resident!" A system in which only one group of people have to carry ID blatantly will not work, because any body can just claim to be part of the group that doesn't have to carry ID! And do you really want to get in to forcing tourists to carry ID cards? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.
• Let's see an honest debate, and not one where people repeat simplified points that appeal to some sense of nationalism rather than fact.

I wanted to get on here and rattle off a load of points in favour of the EU but you've just done a better job than I ever could. Thankyou for your reasoned opinion in shutting the naysayers well and truly up!

I should add though, I am uncomfortable with an EU that moves toward a more "neoliberal" economic model as espoused in bits of the Lisbon Treaty (which I initially supported). Nonetheless we have to back the European project- a lot of good social and environmental regulation has arisen from EU directives.

thanmuwa

Good Post Chris! just to add a bit....

chris_yo wrote: »

• "Switzerland and Norway are not in the E.U. and are hugely successful, so we would be too." NOT NECESSARILY. Switzerland has a mountain of gold reserves and has been banker to the world for centuries. It's place in the world is unique. Norway has huge oil and gas resources. Regardless of whether it were in the E.U. or not, it would have wealth for the same reasons that Middle East countries have wealth. The U.K. is not in the same position as either.

And Switzerland and Norway are two extremely expensive countries to live in, despite all their natural advantages. That could happen here too!

chris_yo wrote: »

• "The E.U. produces "red tape" requiring U.K. companies to comply with more regulations, increasing costs." PARTLY TRUE BUT NOT THE FULL STORY. Any form of regulation is likely to increase cost of compliance for business. What the "anti-EU" argument doesn't state is that this regulation wouldn't disappear by leaving the E.U. Firstly, any business that trades with the E.U. is still going to be subject to regulation, and secondly because economies of scale will ensure that British business producing goods for both the U.K. and E.U. would invariably have to have a single product line for both markets, thus actually increasing the amount of red tape. In contrast, competing companies inside the E.U. would only have to deal with a single market and single set of regulations, and would be at a competitive advantage. Note that the United States, that beacon of capitalism, also has large amounts of regulation for companies to deal with. Regulation is an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business, regardless of the market you operate in.

To give an example from the medical industry, any drugs company in the world goes for both FDA and European approval for their drugs, because those are your two main markets. The UK has absolutely NO say in FDA regulations, but a major voice in the EU regulations. Outside the EU, the UK would still have to abide by the regulations, but with zero voice in their make-up. Same with selling any medical equipment to the EU (it needs to be CE marked and currently the UK has a huge say in what the CE marking rules are by virtue of being in the EU).

bo_drinker wrote: »

They have had what they came for sent most of the earnings home thus not contributing to our economy, it's been take take take and now the icing has gone off the cake

By doing the work (which in most cases, the employer couldn't find a British person willing to do, after all, why do manual labour when you could just get the dole!) they have contributed to the economy because all that work generated tax revenue, whether it was in VAT on supplies, the food that was eaten, etc etc. You want them to also have to leave all their (hard-earned) money behind when they go? Why would anyone work if they weren't allowed to do what they wanted with the money? Most of the migrant workers took jobs that few other people were willing to do, for very low pay, and their British bosses benefitted (profitted) hugely. I would say that is a case of give-give-give rather than take-take-take, wouldn't you?

But working abroad for money is fine when a British person does it? I bet most people know someone who is or was out in Saudi for a few years doing exactly the same thing! Ever tell them off for sending "most of the earnings home thus not contributing to (the local) economy"? Thought not.

worbikeman wrote: »

It's a big lie about the EU making business easier - I tried to post a 7kg package to Rep Ireland, Parcelforce wanted £61!! But to a nearby address in N. Ireland, 20 miles away, the same package was £15! The reason? Because S. Ireland is 'abroad'. So much for breaking down boundaries.

Ireland is abroad from the UK (and very happily so). And Parcelforce's profiteering (or subsidising UK deliveries from another point of view) is hardly down to the EU. In fact, when inequities like that come to the EU's notice, they usually tell the companies to cap prices (look at the recent changes in roaming charges for mobile phones for example)....